This collection of pages is actually a defense of one of the greatest
Saints and
Martyrs of the Holy Catholic Church, not only by way of apologetics
because his reputation is continually
disparaged, but for the purpose of reparation as well. To accuse one of
the writers of the Sacred Word of God, who wrote under His Inspiration,
of a character flaw, within the context of a sermon that is addressing
one of the Saint's Epistles, is not only irresponsible, and very possible seriously sinful,
it
sends mixed signals to the parishioners; this is true particularly
because of the express context of former such sermons, which included
the same disparagement of St. Paul, and a blasphemy in re St. John the Evangelist, to
wit, that he was not
always right in his scripture writings, thus the priest-homilist
announces to all the assembled
that he, the priest, may dissent. This is the same priest who thinks
that the Church is unjust to women, without further elaboration. Given
the nature of the priest's tendency to deviate from Tradition and
its traditions, there is but one implication . . .

Does the priest intend to diminish
the force, the truthfulness and the urgency of St. Paul's counsel to us
as Christians? Or does he have some other motive, or is he so seriously
confused that he knows not what impression he conveys? The priest
boasts of his education. Certainly we cannot be sure of his motive or
intention, but we do not have to know, for we judge fruits, not the
heart, of those who effect works. "By their fruits thou shalt know
them." It is the effect that we must judge in order to save our souls,
and not be led astray, and not cast our pearls before swine.

I will admit to a personal motif and bias here, apart from my Catholic
duty: St. Paul is not only my adopted Patron, he just happens to be
my favorite New Testament writer. But even if he were not, I would come
to his defense. Imagine the times we live in! that a Saint who enjoys
the Beatific Vision must be defended in sight of the Heavenly Court
looking down below and
before mankind, because of the ignorance or the malice of a poorly
educated priest. I cannot bring myself to believe the latter, so I
choose the former characterization. [The priest never said Saul, or
Paul before his conversion, he said
Saint Paul, and at the same time, referred to the Epistle to the
Colossians, so that the connection between Saint Paul's character flaw
and his writings are unmistakable, without actually disparaging the
Epistle, which he seemed to favor.]

The nature of the debasement of the good name of Saint
Paul, is that he always had to be better or appear to suffer more than
those around him. If Saint Paul mentions his sufferings, it is to spur
men on, not to boast; and if St. Paul ever boasted, it was to boast in
Christ, not in himself. Context is very important, in fact, can be
everything and without it, a part of the truth becomes a lie because
this kind of distortion falsifies the truth.

Now, I do not know how many times it takes to pour over St. Paul's
Epistles to
be familiar enough with them,
but I cannot find anything that could be taken out of
context, innocently, and magnified to support this claim. The Second
Letter to the
Corinthians has a section of passages [Chapter 11:23-30] that could be
taken out of context, I suppose, but to do so, one would have to deliberately ignore the subsequent
chapter, as well as the one immediately preceding it: which make
manifestly clear that Saint Paul is not boasting
of suffering in the sense implied by the priest. Perhaps I am poorly
trained myself and do not have good reading comprehension, but
something
tells me this cannot be the reason why I have not found any actual
evidence
for the calumny. In fact, one of the attributes or virtues of Saint
Paul that first struck me, many, many years ago when I took to a
preference for his Epistles, was his utter humility, united to a
profound sense of the dignity of the person, who, when in the state of
grace, provides a temple for the Holy Spirit. Another was the acumen of
his mind and the clarity, the breathtaking clarity and breadth of his
intellect, which he used for the glory of God and not for his own
advancement. I was and continue to be
so overcome with these two aspects of his saintly comportment, which
are but only two of so many, that I latched onto him, so to speak and
have not been able to let go, not that I would want to. I do
not find his unwillingness to compromise prideful or his willingness to
suffer and undergo all manner of privation, exhibitionist, that he
would want to have
"top billing" in the suffering department; I find him so humble as to
be irresistibly lovable, challenging me, beckoning to come follow him
to martyrdom whether with a capital 'M' or a small 'm'.

But my feelings
do not matter, it is what the Church
teaches through her
Tradition and traditions in the accepted authors about Saint Paul that
does.

For centuries the writings and character of St. Paul have been
embroiled in controversy, whether from Jewish or Gentile quarters,
neo-pagan and Christian alike, and even in some Catholic quarters. The
controversy is like a great mist, that precludes our penetrating
through to the blinding flash of genius, and subtle charm of this
great, oh so great Apostle. That is, it is a mist if we choose to
indulge in the game. I prefer to take him as God gives him to us, as
direct as his eloquent, and precise Epistles.

St. Paul is a Saint, which is redundant, however, we need to say it
anyway, a Saint of tremendous
inspiration simply because he so keenly grasped the supernatural and
strove for sanctity above all else, without compromise, and all for the
spread of the Kingdom of God, to save the souls of men. The love of
human respect was not his domain. Any man, then, as today, who
expresses no interest in this "kindly but deadly trap" is more often
than not viewed as 'controversial' with each age putting its particular
characterization or stamp on him. This is basic to human nature since
the Fall in the Garden. Weak men are given to project their failures
and sins onto those whom they perceive to be stronger, as if to justify
themselves, usually not understanding that this is actually what they
are doing, that is, it is largely a reflex and not a conscientiously
chosen perspective. This reality does not absolve us sinners
completely, as even unintended venial sins, are still sins. It is only
mortal sin that requires intention to incur mortal guilt. Then, too,
those aflame with zeal for the things of God, tend to be viewed much
more critically than those who possess less outward zeal. On the one
hand this ought to be expected and Saint Paul would be the first to
agree. On the other hand, the critique does double duty as a
self-serving exercise, again to rationalize one's own faults or even
sloth. We too often mistake zeal for harshness of heart, another way of
really saying, we prefer to be loved more in our sinful selves than God
is loved for Himself, without having to admit it to each other and to
ourselves. Paul's zeal for the glory of God is such a zeal that
inspires such a reaction. His critics have proven to exhibit their own
kind of fiery zeal, one could say!

Actually Paul
was weak in that he had to struggle with every fiber of his being to
wage spiritual combat, and in acknowledging his utter dependence on
God, his greatest weakness became his greatest strength, rather than
his greatest strength becoming his greatest weakness. Thus is the
difference between those who become Saints and those who do not. This
is the essence of every Saint and every non-saint, but the essence of
Saint Paul is so much more expansive.

I quote verbatim from the Introduction to Source No. 1 below:

" . . . And consider the means he took! He met every issue
head-on, without compromise. Impatiently, fearlessly, quickly, he tore
away hypocrisy, smugness, selfishness. The brilliance of his thought,
the richness and imagery of his language, the deftness and speed of his
strategy, have tended to give him a place in history with the suave,
the polished, the learned, the sophisticated of this world. It is
convenient to forget what manner of man he really was: this man whose
whole personality can only be contained in the word "Apostle." Time has
tended to obscure his ruggedness of character, the simplicity of his
life, his innate humility. It is refreshing to read here the homely
details of his trade of tent-making, of his poor, worn and roughened
hands, too rough to make any but the crudest of marks with the
stylus. . . . Sensitive souls, hurt by the rivalries that creep
in even among the servants of God, are brought face to face, . . . with
Paul's tireless affection for his own people in the face of their
fickleness, their defection to other more 'showy' teachers, their
constant reversion to racial pride and arrogance.

"We need the example of St. Paul today. While he labored quietly in
prison, ceaselessly giving individual interviews and endless personal
exhortations, writing numberless letters, untangling perpetual
misunderstandings, taking into the new Christian community slaves and
unimportant people without distinction, the old community of pagan pomp
and power was about to fall dramatically into desuetude. The
measure of its colossalism was the measure of its emptiness. We, too,
have seen mass and size and material strength mistaken for symbols of
greatness. In the very act of subduing these hostile forces, we, too,
have expanded, extended our energies, stretched out our resources.
Without the wisdom of St. Paul we could end as empty of real life as
our foes.

"What was the essence of that wisdom? The knowledge that comes with
love. St. Paul convinced his hearers, not because of dexterity in
turning a phrase, nor agility in dialectic, but because he knew in his
own life, the Divine charity he sought to explain to others. . .
. "

Please note that we have opted to retain all English
spelling as
in the original, that is not the standard for American English, but the
formal English of that country from which some of our writers hail.
Please do not e-mail us that we have misspelled words, in this regard,
such as favour instead of favor and neighbour instead of neighbor, etc.
We used to change all such nouns and verbs, but it took so much time,
we decided to cease this policy.

Note: the Catholic Treasures Link above takes you to the
precise
page where this work is listed as part of a set, the Haydock
Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible, which consists of three books, the Old
Testament, the New Testament and the Bible Dictionary listed above, all
three with with exquisite engraving.

The image of St. Paul in the banner above is of unknown source, both as
to the artist and date. Some attribute it to Vignon, of whom I know
nothing.

1. My given name, the name I was
Baptized
with is Mary-Judith [Marie-Yvette in French], my first name, not a
first-middle name combination; the nickname, "Pollyanna" was
provided by my father as I was a "bubbly" baby. Eventually Pollyana
became "Paul" by my mother, then settled into Pauly by everyone before
I was school age. The appellation stuck and I have used it legally and
for all normal correspondence ever since. Sacramentally it remained
Mary-Judith [Marie-Yvette]. Hence my reference to St. Paul as my
adopted Patron.